Gun Violence and Cancer
Gun Violence and Cancer
Why are these public health problems treated so differently?
By: Andrew Goddard
I have often used the analogy that gun violence is like a cancer on our society. I think this is a very appropriate way to characterize gun violence.
Both are names we use to describe a broad spectrum of different forms of adverse effects on public health. There are at least as many different forms of cancer as there are different types of gun violence.
Like the various treatments that target the cure or control of specific cancers, there are many actions and interventions that offer promising results for reducing specific types of gun violence.
However, there is no organization that actively seeks to prevent research into causes, preventions, and treatments for cancer; nor is there an organization that stifles the implementation of a cure or treatment for a specific type of cancer on the grounds that such a treatment offers no practical benefit for all types of cancer, therefore it should not be supported or practiced.
Gun violence prevention suffers from the exact opposite situation where those seemingly antithetical constraints are all too real.
The gun industry and their mouthpiece organizations like the NRA and NSSF consistently seek to stifle research on gun violence, and they have been very successful at doing so. The same is true for their opposition to specific legislation intended to reduce certain types of gun violence, which results in extremely lax or ineffective gun laws and contributes to the continued rise in gun violence rates.
Likewise, the focus of gun advocates on the reactive measures after gun violence takes place — and their total indifference or opposition to preventive measures that could reduce death and injury rates — perpetuates the problem.
Both of these pernicious problems, cancer and gun violence, need to be seen as public health issues and dealt with accordingly.
Having a Supreme Court that opines that gun regulations must comport with beliefs and practices of the 18th century is just as ridiculous as saying that modern medicine should be constrained to conform to the prevailing medical knowledge and beliefs of the 18th century.
We must believe that the ideas and opinions of the 18th century should not constrain our ability to seek 21st century solutions to what are now recognized to be extremely pertinent concerns.
As with all public health issues we need an appropriate balance between prevention and cure. After all, the expression that “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure” is applicable to both cancer and gun violence.
Andrew L. Goddard is Legislative Director for the Virginia Center for Public Safety, the oldest GVP group in Virginia, formed 30 years ago.
Well... your confusion on this point stems from the fact that you seem to believe that a biological problem, its causes, and cures, are identical to a social problem with its causes and cures. Add to that the ignorance (as in you ignore) the fact that the social issue you are concerned about involves a Constitutional Right, not to mention the very practical matter of self-defense from crime, chaos and political degradation, and the 'problem' you describe vanishes. Comparing crime and the misuse of guns to the medical issue of cancer is a totally apples to elephants comparison. Thinking as your article suggests is akin to believing you can eliminate forest fires by eliminating matches and then questioning why there is no research on how to eliminate matches.